RIGHT TO REPLY

The probability O's 'birth certificate' is genuine

Exclusive: Christopher Monckton of Brenchley does the jaw-dropping math

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, high priest of climate skepticism, advised Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, wrote leaders for the Yorkshire Post, was editor of the Catholic paper The Universe, managing editor of the Telegraph Sunday Magazine, assistant editor of Today, and consulting editor of the Evening Standard. He invented the million-selling "Eternity Puzzles," "Sudoku X" and a promising treatment for infections. See the Science & Public Policy Institute.

In the cult TV series “Numb3rs,” a professor helps the feds catch criminals by using higher mathematics. In real life, the lack of elementary mathematical knowledge among the nation’s gumshoes is not the least of the reasons why, so far, Black Jesus has gotten away with his Mickey Mouse “birth certificate.”

When I worked for Margaret Thatcher, I used math several times to catch scientific fraudsters. In 2007, for the first time, I used it to catch a Democrat blue-handed.

That year Stuart Dimmock, a lorry-driver from Dartford, Kent, sought a High Court order restraining HM Secretary of State for Education from circulating copies of Al Gore’s mawkish, sci-fi comedy horror movie “An Inconvenient Truth” to schools in England. He did not want his two lads subjected to sanctimonious, hard-left politics in class.

At the invitation of the plaintiff’s lawyers, I provided scientific testimony that the movie contained numerous errors. Two eminent scientists concurred. The defendants caved. The court accepted that nine serious errors existed. All nine errors exaggerated the supposed climate threat. The probability that this had happened accidentally was accordingly 1 in 29, or 1 in 512, or less than 0.002.

Accordingly, the High Court found Gore’s movie political, not scientific. The judge ordered the education secretary to circulate 77 pages of corrective guidance to schools before the movie could be shown there. Gore has never recovered from this fatal blow, nicely timed to precede his four-boxtops Nobel “Peace” Prize by two days.

We can use the same method to determine the likelihood that Fu Manchu’s “birth certificate” is genuine. First, we estimate the probability that each of the errors and anomalies was accidental.

Registrar’s signature-stamp all on one electronic layer, allowing it to be moved about in the data-file: 100:1 against. This is actually impossible, but it’s Be Nice to Soetoro Week. Registrar’s date-stamp ditto: 100:1 (again, in truth impossible).

Multiple 1-bit monochrome layers and one 8-bit color layer: 60:1. Experts twice found no such pattern in 600 file-optimization programs: I allow for 10 anomalous programs to exist.

Lavishly funded bureaucracy uses wonky typewriter: 10:1.

Human error: Certificate number out of sequence 25:1; incorrect birth date of father 40:1; use of “African” contrary to written form-filling rules and 20 years before the term came into common use 25:1; miscoded statistical data 25:1 (official government estimate).

Other identity documents: Anomalously worded abstract on short-form birth certificate 100:1; two-digit year on selective service stamp against DoD written rules 100:1 (actually impossible: no two-digit example other than that of Kenya’s “son of the soil” is known); non-citizen of Connecticut holds CT Social Security Number 100:1.

There are many other errors, but these suffice. Defenders of Mr. Community Organizer say each error could have just happened by accident. I mean, it’s government form-filling, right?

But here’s where the math comes in. If each error is a genuine accident, the errors are independent events, so the probabilities of each error are multiplied together to determine the probability that all occurred in one document.

Accordingly, the probability that Mr. Obama’s birth narrative is in substance true is no better than 1 in 62,500,000,000,000,000,000, or 0.0000000000000000000016. That probability is what we mathematicians describe as “vanishingly different from zero.”

Don’t be misled by the simplicity of the method. It’s simple but sound. The result is solid.

The probability that the certificate is false is 1 minus the probability that it is genuine. Any mathematician would have to agree under oath that if the odds against each error have been fairly stated, and if the errors are genuinely independent of one another, then it is very, very nearly certain that the “birth certificate” is a forgery.

Here is what you can do about it. Write by Return Receipt Requested to the head of the Secret Service and demand an investigation into the forged “birth certificate.” When you get no reply, write again by Return Receipt Requested, giving the Secret Service two weeks to reply.

When you still get no reply, apply to your Federal District Court for judicial review of the administrative decision of the Secret Service to refuse to do its job. It has a specific remit to investigate the authenticity of identification documents.

The courts cannot legitimately deny standing to any citizen seeking an order to tell the Secret Service to get on with its work rather than sullenly crossing the street, looking the other way, shutting its eyes, blocking its ears and singing “la-la-la” in a hysterical monotone.

Nor can the courts avoid examining the evidence that the “birth certificate” is forged, for that is the very heart of the case. This route would overcome most of the procedural difficulties that ballot challengers have faced. Give it a try. Otherwise it’s four more years of The Amateur. The United States as we know it and love it would not survive that.